Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[starr]

Perhaps I've been too gracious here. Okay Xamonas Chegwé. Let's assume that morality doesn't need to be logically consistent. Now tell me why we should teach evolution instead of creationism.

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me Andrew. How is 'morality' in any way comparable to the scientifically based theory of evolution?

[starr]

To clarify my position concerning the relative nature of so called reality and its relation to the (clearly) relative nature of morality let me say the following.

Morality clearly (unless you are a deist) does not exist 'out there'. The universe we observe clearly does in some form. It seems unlikely (but could possibly be) a figment of my consciousness. However it is the nature of the stuff 'out there' that I was trying to get at. Our human minds are pattern seekers it seems and we go around categorising everything we lay eyes on. My view is that objects 'out there' have a 'reality' that is hugely complex, multi-faceted and very 'other' to what we perceive.

First of all we filter our a great deal of the information flying around the place as a result of evolutionary processes and we are programmed as a result to only see and perceive what helped out ancestors survive on the savannah or wherever. Human being in effect 'render' the world, much as computer software might render a wire frame with a pattern, colour or whatever. Now that to me is s subjective take on the universe out there. We simplify it enormously with our perception and also attribute much of it where function is concerned (e.g. a pile of wood becoming a chair etc) with subjective definitions. A chair, one could argue, is only a chair to a human being and has no objective existence as a chair outside of human consciousness. This applies to morality too, though the starting points are different in that the concept of morality is abstract as opposed to that of a chair which has real stuff as part of its identity.

This makes sense to me Rumertron. Yes the world exists but the way we each perceive the world is subjective.

[Drewish]

Perhaps I've been too gracious here. Okay Xamonas Chegwé. Let's assume that morality doesn't need to be logically consistent. Now tell me why we should teach evolution instead of creationism.

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me Andrew. How is 'morality' in any way comparable to the scientifically based theory of evolution?

My own personal morality (Onjectivism) holds that reverence for the truth is a moral imperative. I oppose the teaching of falsehoods as facts as a matter of moral principle. If morality is innately subjective, then why is it 'right' to teach the truth and not pleasant lies? I mean Nigeria tops happiness surveys even as their people starve to death in debilitating poverty. If morality doesn't have to be consistent, if it doesn't have to reflect reality in any ways, then why does the truth even matter?

[starr]

Perhaps I've been too gracious here. Okay Xamonas Chegwé. Let's assume that morality doesn't need to be logically consistent. Now tell me why we should teach evolution instead of creationism.

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me Andrew. How is 'morality' in any way comparable to the scientifically based theory of evolution?

My own personal morality (Onjectivism) holds that reverence for the truth is a moral imperative. I oppose the teaching of falsehoods as facts as a matter of moral principle. If morality is innately subjective, then why is it 'right' to teach the truth and not pleasant lies? I mean Nigeria tops happiness surveys even as their people starve to death in debilitating poverty. If morality doesn't have to be consistent, if it doesn't have to reflect reality in any ways, then why does the truth even matter?

My emphasis.

If it is your own personal morality it is subjective. You are saying that you understand that not all others share your thoughts about morality. That is, by definition, subjective is it not?

Are you arguing that morality is objective or that your subjective morality is the 'right' morality? It seems like the latter.

[Trolldor]

then why is it 'right' to teach the truth and not pleasant lies?

It's not 'right', it is believed to be right. Objectively it makes no difference at all.

[FBM]

then why is it 'right' to teach the truth and not pleasant lies?

It's not 'right', it is believed to be right. Objectively it makes no difference at all.

Yes, BAA, that's an important distinction. People believe them to be right, but they have no proof that they are so. We behave as if 'right' and 'wrong' had solid foundations, but when we investigate carefully, they don't.

Who said it's categorically wrong to tell pleasant lies? Sometimes it's better than telling the truth. First, there's Plato's Noble Lies, but that's too obscure and would take a lot of explaining, so how about the little white lies that everyone tells to make situations go more pleasantly. As far as I can tell, everyone does it. Saying to a depressed SO, "No, your new hairstyle looks wonderful on you!" ( ) etc.

Morality is based on pragmatics, which is contingent, relative and always shifting.

[starr]

Perhaps I've been too gracious here. Okay Xamonas Chegwé. Let's assume that morality doesn't need to be logically consistent. Now tell me why we should teach evolution instead of creationism.

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me Andrew. How is 'morality' in any way comparable to the scientifically based theory of evolution?

My own personal morality (Onjectivism) holds that reverence for the truth is a moral imperative. I oppose the teaching of falsehoods as facts as a matter of moral principle. If morality is innately subjective, then why is it 'right' to teach the truth and not pleasant lies? I mean Nigeria tops happiness surveys even as their people starve to death in debilitating poverty. If morality doesn't have to be consistent, if it doesn't have to reflect reality in any ways, then why does the truth even matter?

My emphasis.

If it is your own personal morality it is subjective. You are saying that you understand that not all others share your thoughts about morality. That is, by definition, subjective is it not?

Are you arguing that morality is objective or that your subjective morality is the 'right' morality? It seems like the latter.

then why is it 'right' to teach the truth and not pleasant lies?

It's not 'right', it is believed to be right. Objectively it makes no difference at all.

Yes, BAA, that's an important distinction. People believe them to be right, but they have no proof that they are so. We behave as if 'right' and 'wrong' had solid foundations, but when we investigate carefully, they don't.

Who said it's categorically wrong to tell pleasant lies? Sometimes it's better than telling the truth. First, there's Plato's Noble Lies, but that's too obscure and would take a lot of explaining, so how about the little white lies that everyone tells to make situations go more pleasantly. As far as I can tell, everyone does it. Saying to a depressed SO, "No, your new hairstyle looks wonderful on you!" ( ) etc.

Morality is based on pragmatics, which is contingent, relative and always shifting.

That is exactly what I was getting at with my last post to Andrew. It seems that he may be confused by what 'objective morality' means. He just thinks his morals are the 'right' ones. The fact that other morals may differ from his 'superior' ones by definition makes all of the morals 'subjective'.

[FBM]

Oh and:

*cough* When a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the offspring of his predecessor. Infanticide. Is this immoral?

No, it is not immoral.

Thank you. When a male chimpanzee does the same thing as the lion, ie, killing a defeated (chimp) rival's offspring when he ascends to leadership, is that immoral?

[Drewish]

littlebitofnonsense. I appreciate your input, but when I said personal, I was simply identifying the morality that I follow, not as any indication that I believe in subjectivity. I would further claim that EVERYONE who has a moral code that they believe in holds that their moral code is correct. I would be just fine with people who claimed that morality was completely subjective if they then would forgo ever making any moral assertions ever, but they don't, so subjectivity is simply a mask they hide behind. I am not saying either that all situations can be morally analyzed (after all we don't know everything.) I am stating that because we do KNOW some things about how the universe works and because morality MUST be consistent with the universe, that morality must A) Not contradict reality and B) Not contradict itself. This does not mean that we can know all morality absolutely, but it does give us a starting place to say that while we can not prove that one moral code is correct, we can certainly disprove several moral codes as being invalid and innately hypocritical. Basically, we can't prove what morality is, but we can prove what it isn't, and through that arrive at common elements that are very probably aspects of morality. We can "know" some things about morality in the same way that we can "know" things about the universe.

And as far as the chimp thing, that I can not know. With lions it clearly a matter of instinct. I am nor certain as to how self-aware chimps are, so I'm unable to say.

[FBM]

And as far as the chimp thing, that I can not know. With lions it clearly a matter of instinct. I am nor certain as to how self-aware chimps are, so I'm unable to say.

Am I correct in understanding that you believe morality is dependent upon degree of self-awareness of the agent?

[Drewish]

Yes, morality can only be said to exist when there is a choice. If there is no choice then there is no right or wrong. Also, to put the basis of my views in philosophical terms, I believe that objective morality is attainable once one rejects the notion of meta-physics. There is no objective morality unless metaphysics is crap (Just look at Hum.)

[FBM]

Yes, morality can only be said to exist when there is a choice. If there is no choice then there is no right or wrong.

Is morality, then, limited to humans? Or is it a sliding scale on the evolutionary tree? Something else? If there were no humans, would morality exist nevertheless?

Also, to put the basis of my views in philosophical terms, I believe that objective morality is attainable once one rejects the notion of meta-physics. There is no objective morality unless metaphysics is crap (Just look at Hum.)

OK, so you believe that. I won't muddy the water here with requests for rational or empirical support for this belief, but I'll briefly mention that belief is only required when evidence lacks. I'm more interested in the above questions concerning objective morality in the non-human realms.

[charlou]

And as far as the chimp thing, that I can not know. With lions it clearly a matter of instinct. I am nor certain as to how self-aware chimps are, so I'm unable to say.

Morality is a construct that has evolved as our sentience has evolved. It changes and varies over time and across cultures and even within societies and families. Have other animals developed morality too? Perhaps ... without communication it's difficult to know. It's possible the concept of morality was incipient in our common ancestors with other species (how far back?) and evolved among several different species as we all branched off from the common ancestor, perhaps in different forms ... hmmm ... interesting to wonder about ...

I don't know what your definition of 'objective' is, Andrew? To me, in this context, 'objective' means 'exists independently and irrespective of the sentience, knowledge and understanding of individuals' (my words). This definition of 'objective' does not fit with my understanding that morality is a construct that has evolved as our sentience has evolved, and which changes and varies over time and across cultures, even within societies and families.

The phrase 'objective morality' is an oxymoron.

It's possible (and very often demonstrated) for humans to subscribe to more than one level of morality and associated ethical stances simultaneously, sometimes leading to seemingly hypocritical views and/or behaviours. I think that's where dilemmas, dichotomies, dissonance come into morality.

[Drewish]

I understand what you are saying, but neither of those are the definitions that I would use for morality or for objective.

Morality: A system or rules of conduct or principles.
Objective: To be based on facts and not personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

(I just copied these from an the first dictionary listing found from a Google search of the terms 'morality' and 'objective' just to make sure that my own personal bias didn't influence the definitions of what the words mean.)

The definitions you gave would make objective morality an oxymoron, but word play and semantics is never the friend of good debate. So let's try this instead, I assert that there is a system or rules of conduct or principle that is based on facts and not personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

[starr]

I understand what you are saying, but neither of those are the definitions that I would use for morality or for objective.

Morality: A system or rules of conduct or principles.
Objective: To be based on facts and not personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

(I just copied these from an the first dictionary listing found from a Google search of the terms 'morality' and 'objective' just to make sure that my own personal bias didn't influence the definitions of what the words mean.)

The definitions you gave would make objective morality an oxymoron, but word play and semantics is never the friend of good debate. So let's try this instead, I assert that there is a system or rules of conduct or principle that is based on facts and not personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

I would be very suprised in your morality is not based, at least in part, on personal feelings and prejuice to some degree. I know mine is. I think everybody's is.

As for interpretations, I would be very interested to hear how you think your morality is not open to interpretation but is based solely on fact. I don't think it is possible for any type of morality to be based purely on fact. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'fact' and your definition of 'interpretations'.


Whether or not morality is objective or subjective is a philosophical question therefore the definitions we use need to consider whether there is a standard philosophical useage. I think the following information may be useful.


The following is a dictionary definition of subjective that was identified as pertaining to philosophy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

Subjective: Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

I think the following definition of objective is where you got your definition from Andrew. I've highlighted the one you chose in red. The one I would use in a philosophical context I've highlighted in green. I think that they both actually mean the same thing, it's just that you and I seem to have differing interpretations of 'not influenced by feelings, interpretations, or prejudice'.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

Objective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

This wikipedia page is also useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivit ... losophy%29

Objectivity and subjectivity

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is one that is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places, or for certain people.

Morality is wholly dependent on human thought and feelings. It is therefore subjective. Some people choose their morals with little thought, they just accept what their parents teach them. Others, probably like you Andrew, spend a lot of time and research to learn and discover about the world, gathering the relevant facts.... and then interpreting that information to come up with conclusions about what you think your morality should be.